The reason for the action was that this show and its host invited representatives from Golden Dawn, not just a "far-right political organization" as Huffpo claims, but an actual honest-to-god Neo-Nazi group.

chascarrillo:The reason for the action was that this show and its host invited representatives from Golden Dawn, not just a "far-right political organization" as Huffpo claims, but an actual honest-to-god Neo-Nazi group.

chascarrillo:The reason for the action was that this show and its host invited representatives from Golden Dawn, not just a "far-right political organization" as Huffpo claims, but an actual honest-to-god Neo-Nazi group.

Either you have the right to free speech or you don't.

/best way to deal with those types is to let them have their say and make fools of themselves//otherwise you just turn them into martyrs

beta_plus:chascarrillo: The reason for the action was that this show and its host invited representatives from Golden Dawn, not just a "far-right political organization" as Huffpo claims, but an actual honest-to-god Neo-Nazi group.

Either you have the right to free speech or you don't.

/best way to deal with those types is to let them have their say and make fools of themselves//otherwise you just turn them into martyrs

Pretty sure the right to free speech doesn't obligate anyone to provide you a platform.

fearthebunnyman:Pretty sure the right to free speech doesn't obligate anyone to provide you a platform.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but there are some powerful arguments to be made against that assertion: does speech that cannot be heard still qualify as speech? If not, then somebody has to provide a platform.

Millennium:fearthebunnyman: Pretty sure the right to free speech doesn't obligate anyone to provide you a platform.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but there are some powerful arguments to be made against that assertion: does speech that cannot be heard still qualify as speech? If not, then somebody has to provide a platform.

Your making the "access" argument - what good is the right to speech if you have no platform/what good is the right to abortion if there are no clinics/what good is the right to vote if there are no polling places, etc.

It's a valid argument, but I don't think it lends itself to this situation. Saying a major news network (is it a major news network btw?) has an obligation to provide an extremist fringe group that has in its core beliefs a defined hatred of and aggressiveness towards other citizens is a bad call.

Is it not in the public interest to be able to examine all sides, even -perhaps especially- the most odious? Are groups like this, when allowed to speak for themselves, not their own best counter-arguments?

Millennium:I'm inclined to agree with you, but there are some powerful arguments to be made against that assertion: does speech that cannot be heard still qualify as speech? If not, then somebody has to provide a platform.

You don't need a "platform" to make yourself heard. You can hold a rally in a public place, you can print newsletters or flyers, you can set up a blog; none of these things require a media organization to make a platform for you.

Speech has always been an example of a right that rarely ever requires "access" to exercise, beyond some nominal access like access to a photocopier/printer.

Millennium:Is it not in the public interest to be able to examine all sides, even -perhaps especially- the most odious? Are groups like this, when allowed to speak for themselves, not their own best counter-arguments?

Not always. Or rather, its not always in the common good - when you allow extremist speech to enter mainstream speech, you can cause a shift in the national conversation. It's a tactic used extensively by the right - see for example how we are now having debates about birth control of all things, and from there its a short step to attacking women who work outside the home, etc. And then on the other side, OWS was successful in their tactics and publicity, if only partially, in shifting the discussion to financial corruption and jobs etc.

But there's also the difference btwn negative and positive freedoms - freedom to/freedom for. Freedom of speech actually only guarantees the government cannot censor you. Freedom FROM government oppression. It does not allow you the freedom TO - force someone else to provide you a platform. B/c then you are violating that someone else's right to choose who they want to give said platform to, or not.

Millennium:Is it not in the public interest to be able to examine all sides, even -perhaps especially- the most odious? Are groups like this, when allowed to speak for themselves, not their own best counter-arguments?

No and no.

Second question first: fringe groups are their own best counter-arguments if they honestly state their position, but fringe groups usually couch their goals in deceptive and bogus arguments. Creationists, for example, try to paint themselves as an alternate scientific theory; holocaust deniers paint themselves as serious historians; deniers all pretend that they're just asking questions, that they just want an even-handed evaluation of the facts (repeating this request no matter how many times an even-handed evaluation debunks them.) One of the main goals of a denial movement is representing themselves as an idea to be examined, while in fact they are an intentional disinformation movement.

And first question: it is not in the public interest to give intentional disinformation a slot on television next to legitimate ideas. All this can do is make more people misinformed. We're not talking about competing arguments for or against austerity, for or against abortion, for or against higher taxes. We're talking about people arguing for or against neo-nazi propaganda.

fearthebunnyman:Pretty sure the right to free speech doesn't obligate anyone to provide you a platform.

It may not, but it also doesn't grant anyone the right to dictate who may and may not access a platform granted by someone else. So, let's not confuse the right to free speech with the right to shut up anyone who voices an inconvenient political opinion, no matter how distasteful it might be.

You don't. Rights are illusions. To say, "I have rights!" is to say, "Someone take care of me because I am a worthless lazy sack of crap!"If you can't protect them, they're not rights... "aspirations" maybe.

/best way to deal with those types is to let them have their say and make fools of themselves

The only way to stop them is by crushing them in the street. They (and this is why liberals continue to fail against conservatives and not know why) are not intellectual or rational. They're about emotion and power. Neo-Nazis recruit people who feel powerless, by making them feel powerful by helping them put others beneath them. They have the same motivation as bullies- push people around to gain self-confidence.

Also you clearly know fark-all about Golden Dawn, who routinely attack immigrants, minorities, and political opponents. So why don't you shut the fark up and let the serious people take care of this, hm?

GreatBunzinni:fearthebunnyman: Pretty sure the right to free speech doesn't obligate anyone to provide you a platform.

It may not, but it also doesn't grant anyone the right to dictate who may and may not access a platform granted by someone else. So, let's not confuse the right to free speech with the right to shut up anyone who voices an inconvenient political opinion, no matter how distasteful it might be.

providing an opinion != "dictating". Private citizens/entities are free to do as they like in that regard, restriction only applies to government.